Sunday, January 12, 2014

Papers finding climate models are unable to simulate the Polar Vortex

Global warming alarmists have made the ridiculous claim that the record cold from the 'Polar Vortex' was predicted by climate models as a response to alleged man-made global warming.However, at least two peer-reviewed publications [noted below] find that climate models have been unable to simulate the behavior of the polar vortex and that little if any confidence should be placed in the model predictions of the polar vortex response to alleged man-made global warming. In addition, three other peer-reviewed papers find that there is no evidence of any trend over up to the past 142 years in jet stream blocking or location, which in turn controls the polar vortex:

Excerpt from the paper Stratospheric Polar Vortices:"A key issue for both the recovery of stratospheric ozoneand the inﬂuence of the stratosphere on tropospheric climateis how the polar vortices will change, if at all, as greenhousegases continue to increase. The stratosphere will coolbecause of the direct radiative effect of increased CO2, butwhether the polar vortices will be come stronger or weakerwill likely depend on changes in wave activity enteringthe stratosphere. There is currently no agreement betweenclimate models as to trends in either the wave activityentering the stratosphere or the strength of the polar vortex,although the trends are generally small in all models. It isunclear how much conﬁdence can be put into the modelprojections of the vortices given that the models typicallyonly have moderate resolution and that the climatologicalstructure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuningof gravity wave parameterizations. Given the above outstanding issues, there is need for continued research in the dynamics of the vortices and their representation in global models."Abstract from the paper Assessment and Consequences of the Delayed Breakup of the Antarctic Polar Vortex in Chemistry-Climate Models

Abstract

Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry-climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century. Specifically, the polar vortices break down too late and peak wind speeds are higher than in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Insufficient planetary wave driving during the October-November period delays the breakup of the southern hemisphere (SH) polar vortex in versions 1 (V1) and 2 (V2) of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) chemistry-climate model, and is likely the cause of the delayed breakup in other CCMs with similarly weak October-November wave driving. Differences in the models' response to years when the modelled eddy heat flux at 100hPa is relatively weak or relatively strong allow the consequences of the late breakup of the polar vortex to be evaluated. In the V1 model, the delayed breakup of the Antarctic vortex biases temperature, circulation and trace gas concentrations in the polar stratosphere in spring. The V2 model behaves similarly (despite major model upgrades from V1), though the magnitudes of the anomalous effects on springtime dynamics are smaller. As greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the atmospheric temperature structure and resulting zonal wind structure are expected to change. Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor. Understanding model weaknesses and improving the modelled stratospheric winds will be necessary for accurate predictions of ozone recovery.

When it comes to the polar vortex, global warming has America divided over whether climate change science messed up big time. After all, it seems counter-intuitive that the global temperature average would cause some locations to experience colder-than-usual weather.

To give you an idea how things can vary in the conditions created by the polar vortex, in the past week there were 665 lowest cold records set while 101 locations reported record highs for this time period (my guess is that Florida has some of those). The effects of the polar vortex are only supposed to last until about the middle of this week, but the political effect in the United States may reverberate for some time to come.

Others like Jason Samenow take the stance that global warming is a separate issue from the polar vortex because similar weather conditions “happened before humans dumped billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and will happen again.” Some reports also point out how the last time the polar vortex caused such drastically cold weather was in the 1980s and also how 2013 set record hot temperatures in Australia.

But what does the science say? Regardless of NOAA’s hypothesis related to air temperature and the Arctic ice extent, studies from 2009 and 2010 doubt the ability of computer models to determine if climate change and the break up of a polar vortex are related:

“Clearly, if CCMs [chemistry climate models] cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”

…and…

“It is unclear how much confidence can be put into the model projections of the vortices given that the models typically only have moderate resolution and that the climatological structure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuning of gravity wave parameterizations.”

The Polar Vortex, Global Warming, And Politics

When it comes to the American public, Pew Research Center found only 28 percent believe “dealing with global warming” is a top priority, which has gone down from 38 percent in 2007. Interestingly enough, even among Democrats the political support for implementing policies based upon global warming has fallen down to 38 percent.

“We know that no single weather episode proves or disproves climate change. Climate refers to the patterns observed in the weather over time and space — in terms of averages, variations, and probabilities. But we also know that this week’s cold spell is of a type there’s reason to believe may become more frequent in a world that’s getting warmer, on average, because of greenhouse-gas pollution.”

The recent events have also caused some to call for politics to get out science. For example, Patrick J. Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, pointed out how Nobel Prize winner Randy Schekman wrote that science journals like “Nature, Cell, and Science are damaging science” by focusing on publishing manuscripts with the “flashiest” headlines. Michaels believes these type of headlines “compel politicians to disburse more money for more research, ultimately buying a beach house for the doom-saying scientists“:

“This creates horrific effects, especially when the issues are policy-related. Summaries of the scientific literature are used to guide policymakers, but if the published research is biased, then so must be the summaries; leaving policymakers no option – not being scientists themselves – but to embrace what is inevitably touted as ‘the best science.’”

Does the cold weather caused by the polar vortex alter your beliefs about global warming or climate change science? Either way, what do you think should be done about the alleged bias in scientific circles?